| 1 |
On 03/27/2013 10:25 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ok... |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> So, what is this all about? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Does all of this mean that udev is now going *completely* away, |
| 7 |
> *totally* replaced by systemd? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If so, has there been any kind of formal announcement about this |
| 10 |
> *anywhere*?? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Hold your horses. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The devs will work something out; systemd is not replacing the udev |
| 15 |
package for all users. For the moment, it's just replacing the udev |
| 16 |
package for users using systemd. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The problem at the moment is a spat between the systemd maintainer and |
| 19 |
the udev maintainer. They don't see eye to eye about which packages |
| 20 |
should be providing which files (and where), and there's also a serious |
| 21 |
miscommunication (and misinterpretation of historical communication) |
| 22 |
issue between the two of them at the moment. They're trying to get it |
| 23 |
worked out (via attempting cooperation or via arbitration, whatever is |
| 24 |
necessary), and things will settle down. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In the mean time, if I read the context right, this issue should only |
| 27 |
affect people who are using systemd. This shouldn't be affecting people |
| 28 |
who aren't using systemd. |
Archives